Economic Impact of Low Water Levels in the Great Lakes

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Philip A. Hart presiding. Senator HART. The committee will be in order. Let me open with a brief statement which will establish our purpose. We direct our attention this morning to the economic impact of the low-water levels in the Great Lakes.

For several years the levels of the Great Lakes and inland waters have been on a decline. The monthly mean level of Lakes Michigan and Huron for the past 4 straight months has been at or below the lowest levels ever recorded. Lakes Superior, Erie, and Ontario are well below their long-term average levels. Adverse effects are being felt by commercial navigation, marina operators, recreation boating, hydroelectric plants, and many other water users—including fish and wildlife.

We are told that there are various causes of these low-water levels, among them lack of precipitation, the dredging of the channels for improvement of navigation, and diversion of water out of the basin.

As one who is privileged to represent this area, I believe that the time has come for congressional and public understanding of the causes and impact of these low-water levels. Beyond that we should then move to a solution, if one is within man's reach.

From my preliminary study, it seems evident that no matter what might be done by way of controlling the waters in the basin, the long-range solution lies in diverting additional water into the basin. This immediately suggests the need for the participation of Canada; indeed, I believe our neighbors to the north are suffering as acutely as we from the low levels. Perhaps they too will welcome a constructive course of action. I am sure they will.

The people of both nations are in the basin together, we share both the problems and the potential benefits.

The mechanism set up by treaty to work on these common problems is the International Joint Commission. Accordingly, on April 15, 1964, I directed a letter to our Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, asking that the United States explore with Canada the possibility of a joint

NOTE. Staff counsel assigned to this hearing: William C. Foster.

request to the IJC that a study be made of the feasibility and economic advantages of diverting additional water into the Great Lakes basin. Senators Douglas, Humphrey, Hartke, Clark, McCarthy, Bayh, and Proxmire have associated themselves with this request. My proposal has been transmitted to President Johnson, to the Secretaries of the Army, Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, and Health, Education, and Welfare, to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and to the Great Lakes Commission. From all have come expressions of interest and encouragement.

Our hearing this morning is in the nature of a progress report. We have asked four of the Federal departments most intimately concerned with this matter to meet with us. From the Corps of Engineers we have requested factual information on the water levels and a report on the status of their lake levels study; from them and from the Department of Commerce their data on the impact of these levels on navigation and commerce.

We recognize that the levels affect many aspects of the water resources of the Great Lakes other than navigation; several problems are involved that may have joint solutions. Therefore, we have asked the Secretary of the Interior, in his capacity as Chairman of the ad hoc Water Resources Council, to give us information on these broader aspects. And finally, from the representatives of the Department of State we seek clarification of the steps that have been taken to date and the schedule for future action in moving ahead.

The Great Lakes constitute the greatest inland body of fresh water in the world. Yet already we see Lake Erie seriously crippled by pollution, and shortages of water causing unemployment in many of our port cities. It is my hope that we will not again be guilty of too little action, too late. I feel sure that you gentlemen here this morning will help us get on with the job, which-without prejudging the record to be made has enormous economic impact on the Great Lakes basin, our whole country, and our economy. The basin really is the heart of the midcontinent, and if you add to our U.S. basin strength the strength of the Dominion to the north, I think you can make a pretty good case that here in truth and in fact is the heart of the American Continent. It is a heart which beats in direct ratio to the strength and capacity and continued availability of that water. I should explain that the Secretary of the Interior is faced with a very difficult schedule problem. His interest is such that he wants to appear personally, but he has asked that if he manages to come, we make it possible for him to testify on his arrival.

I hope the witness who then may be giving us the benefit of his thoughts will understand and appreciate the Secretary's problem. Additionally, because we have been visited by the Midwestern States Governors, there is a possibility that some of them may appear. They too are on a tight schedule, and I hope you will understand if we switch the batting order without very much advance notice.

If there is no objection, I will place in the record at this point several statements I have previously made in respect to this problem for the purpose of furnishing background information.

(The statements referred to follow :)

Mr. HART.

[From the Congressional Record, May 8, 1964]

ADDITIONAL WATERS FOR THE GREAT LAKES

Mr. President, those of us privileged to represent the people of the Great Lakes area-whether on the United States or the Canadian sidehave been increasingly troubled by the low levels of the waters of the lakes. The maintenance of this great inland water resource is of importance not only to the adjacent States but also to the citizens of both countries.

It matters little whether the cause of the problem is lack of precipitation, the dredging of the channels, or the cylic rise and fall of the levels. The fact is, that over very extended periods of time neither of us, we in the United States and our Canadian neighbors, has sufficient water for commerce, pleasure boating, water supplies, sewage disposal, recreation development, wildlife, and the many demands today's civilization imposes on our water resource.

For some months I have sought the means to tackle this problem. I recognize that it will not be cured overnight. I acknowledge that any effective proposal will be costly. But let us begin.

On April 15, 1964, I addressed a letter to our Secretary of State, Dean Rusk. I asked that he explore with Canada the possibility that both Governments request the International Joint Commission to examine into and report, as soon as possible, on the feasibility and economic advantages to both countries of diverting additional water into the Great Lakes basin in order to raise the levels. The reply from the Department of State, dated April 30, 1964, informs me that the American Embassy at Ottawa has brought my proposal to the attention of the Canadian Department of External Affairs.

The

Enclosed with the reply from the Department of State is a copy of a press release issued by the International Joint Commission on April 17, 1964. Commission refers to the low water levels and flows throughout the Great LakesSt. Lawrence River system.

Mr. President, this problem has given concern to our colleagues in the Canadian Parliament. Proceedings of the House of Commons of April 14 and April 28, 1964, as reported in the Hansard, reflect this concern. The Canadian Minister of Transportation is quoted on page 2698 as saying:

"The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) and I and our officials have been considering this matter and we are going to do anything we can to alleviate the situation by dredging. But the water just is not there. This is something that I am afraid can only be cured by more water."

The Minister of Transportation goes on to make the significant point that— "Perhaps steps no one would have once contemplated even a very few years ago will have to be studied."

An article released by the Royal Bank of Canada, of Montreal, reprinted in the Roscommon, Mich., North Woods Call of April 15, 1964, has this to say: "It seems ridiculous to think of Montreal Harbor having to move somewhere else, but the prospect was mentioned by Jacques Simard at a conference of the Community Planning Association in October 1963. The majestic St. Lawrence can one day become feeble and sick, incapable of meeting navigation requirements, hydraulic power needs, and the mass of industrial and domestic demands of a corner of the continent in full economic development.

"In this drainage basin, we have two nations, eight States, and two Provinces," said Andre Gagnon, chairman of Cadres Professionals, Inc., "grouping myriad cities and enterprises for whom it is a question of life or death *** we have hardly 40 years left to find new sources of water.'"

The views of the Canadians are especially important because it seems inevitable that any waters diverted into the Great Lakes of necessity will come from Canada. We are in the basin together. We share the same problems. We should jointly seek answers that will benefit both of us.

Underscoring the urgency of the Great Lakes water level problem is the opinion expressed by the former Chairman of the U.S. section of the International Joint Commission, Mr. Teno Roncalio. In his letter of April 28, 1964, to the President of the United States, Mr. Roncalio states:

"I believe it my duty to inform you that in my opinion the most important problem for the two nations within the jurisdiction of this Commission today is the growing shortage of water in the Great Lakes; and the growing pollution problem of the fresh waters of both nations."

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of April 15 to Dean Rusk, the reply from the Department of State dated April 30, the copy of the

« Prejšnja Naprej »

Knjige

Economic Impact of Low Water Levels in the Great Lakes: Hearings...88-2 ...